CARDENAS-MARTINEZ v. GARLAND

Denying the petitioner’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel before the IJ where the petitioner’s counsel failed to raise the issue of competency and seek safeguards under Matter of M-A-M-, but the IJ, sua sponte, undertook the steps required by M-A-M- to confirm the petitioner was competent. The Court also denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen based on new evidence, including medical records detailing his cognitive impairments, because the new evidence would not have “establish[ed] a causal nexus between his disability…and the persecution.”

Date of Decision
Unpublished